I know this is pedantic but its this loose phraseology which creates misunderstandings and misquotes by others, less well informed.
It is not pendantic and I agree it is interesting to understand the correct position.
Is this correct, however?
The lawyer in me suggests that it is Eurocontrol who are raising the charge in the first instance, and, as agents for NATS, in the second instance, it is presumably Eurocontrol who will sue for non payment. They well be acting therefore as a NATS agent, but the contractual liability arises between them as the collection agent and you, the user?
It would be interesting to know whether contractually Eurocontrol can be asked to bill for a service not provided by their service provider as in this case where it would appear NATS has not in fact provided any en route service as the en route part was wholly outside CAS.
BTW How can you charge for something you havent provided?
In fact I am trying to think of another instance where the State requires you pay when nothing has been provided?
